Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Infinity or a Finite Neigbourhood of Infinity?

  1. #1 Infinity or a Finite Neigbourhood of Infinity? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    196
    Should we treat infinity as: a Finite Neigbourhood of Infinity?

    Such a question may be relevant to functions like:

    f (t) = lim (x -> infinity) t*x*cos x + t^2*sin x

    wich would be +/-t^2 for x large and x falling where cos x is zero.


    It also matters what isn't there - Tao Te Ching interpreted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,125
    Could you clarify what your thinking is?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Infinity or a Finite Neigbourhood of Infinity? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum1
    Should we treat infinity as: a Finite Neigbourhood of Infinity?

    Such a question may be relevant to functions like:

    f (t) = lim (x -> infinity) t*x*cos x + t^2*sin x

    wich would be +/-t^2 for x large and x falling where cos x is zero.
    That is ridiculous.

    It has no meaning and no conceivable meaning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    196
    If infinity is a point it may fall on the real number k*pi/2 for k the infinite natural number, so that that function reduce to t^2 for this specific infinity. Since cos k*pi/2 is zero.

    If infinity is really a finite neigborhood of infinity it doesn't.

    You could have a problem with "specific infinity"?
    It also matters what isn't there - Tao Te Ching interpreted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Infinity is not a point in the sense you're using.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    196
    Then you must logicly explain the sense.

    The real projective line does not do it.
    It also matters what isn't there - Tao Te Ching interpreted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Er, no. It's your idea, so you have to logically explain it. As best as I could understand your post, you're using infinity wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    196
    There is no difficult issue to it. All that is needed is a function F(k) that maps Natural numbers to Real numbers. Defined as:

    F (k) = pi*k/2

    then we can use the deduced f (t) together with the specification F (infinity). It is just that f (t) = t^2 only exist like this if the mapping F (k) is so defined at infinity.

    We therefore need a symbol to state this (like f(t) E* F(k)) and include two Real lines (for image) or a Real line and a Natural number lattice (for preimage) in the reasoning.

    We then "just" show this does not lead to inconsistencies.

    An "ideal point" needs only the definition of the notion of finite dimension (back generalised) and compositon of points being a line (continuum of points). Infinity falls somewhere in the continuum and gets treated specially but not in regard to the first line of this paragraph.
    It also matters what isn't there - Tao Te Ching interpreted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •